Harjinder Singh vs Kesar Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.07.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC moved by the respondent/defendants has been allowed

and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect

that the order dated 26.09.2012 passed by A.C. 2nd Grade, Radaur, on a partition application with regard to tarika takseem (mode of partition)

is wrong and without jurisdiction. In the said suit defendants appeared and moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC alleging that civil

court has no jurisdiction to try, the suit. The jurisdiction of the civil court has been specifically excluded u/s 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land

Revenue Act, 1887. The land in question is the agricultural land and the same can be partitioned under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue

Act. Learned trial court allowed the application moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint of the

petitioner/plaintiff. Hence this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

From the perusal of record it is clear that petitioner had challenged the order of the revenue authorities passed in partition proceedings. In the

said proceedings, tarika takseem (mode of partition) was framed. Thereafter naksha bay was prepared which ultimately culminated into instrument

of partition (sanad takseem). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that order is illegal and without jurisdiction, is not sustainable

as the agricultural land can be partitioned only under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which prescribes an elaborate

procedure for the same. Remedy of appeal/revision is available against the orders passed in the partition proceedings; as such proceedings can be

challenged in the civil court only when they are illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any illegality or perversity in the orders of

the revenue authorities and also could not point out as to how the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

failed to show as to how his share has been reduced or he has not been allotted land according to his share.

Admittedly, right to partition is governed by Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and u/s 158(2)(xviii) of the Punjab Land Revenue

Act the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted. Section 158(xviii) bars a civil court from hearing any question as to allotment of land made in the

partition proceedings of agricultural land. Thus when in partition proceedings before revenue officer there is no dispute as to the title to the land to

be partitioned, civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any question arising out of such proceedings. The fact that procedure of the revenue officer

was defective would not give a civil court jurisdiction in view of clear ouster set forth in the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to

show any illegality or perversity in the orders of the revenue authorities. Only ground is that principles of natural justice have not been followed.

This contention cannot be accepted. Petitioner was party to the proceedings. He had been appearing in the proceedings and had the opportunity to

challenge the orders of revenue authorities which according to him were not in accordance with law. The remedy of appeal/revision and ultimately

writ was available to him. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Dismissed.